Kelvin Is The Best?

[cloud schooner]

And the arguments for and against

@vocal carbon @proud geyser

[proud geyser]

Hello yes

[vocal carbon]

bites your toes

[cloud schooner]

@sage smelt I think?

[proud geyser]

Arguments for:

0ºC + 0ºC = 0ºC
ergo...
32ºF + 32ºF = 32ºF 

Arguments against:
Nobody says things like that, it is irrelevant, and using numbers in a reasonable range is superior

[cloud schooner]

My point is that what people consider “a reasonable range” would adapt based on scale used

[vocal carbon]

ok but there's limits to that

[proud geyser]

^^

I'm not going to say every temperature between 200 and 300

[vocal carbon]

it also depends on where you live

[sage smelt]

my point is that people wouldn't if its too unintuitive

[cloud schooner]

Like, in an alternate universe where people only used Kelvin, I guarantee people would be able to intuitively reason about temperatures between 250 and 350

[proud geyser]

Whislt saying three digit numbers every time you talk about temperature

That's just not worth it

[sage smelt]

aight i'ma step out, i've already arguef my point like a year ago

[vocal carbon]

just take those messages from a year ago and post them

without change

with the same delays

/j

[proud geyser]

Cya laund!
Mom said it's my turn on the temperature scale discussion >:)

[vocal carbon]

I'm watching She-Ra

so imma ditch

😎

[sage smelt]

good show.

[vocal carbon]

watched it twice

showing it to fren

[long blade]

what's important imo is that people understand that celsius/fahrenheit don't have this property; too many people will say "twice the temperature" when that's not a well-defined concept

[proud geyser]

Should I watch?

[vocal carbon]

yes

[cloud schooner]

I will also say that the original reason I formed this opinion is because people are like “Celsius is objectively better” when it’s not

[cloud schooner]

Exactly this

[vocal carbon]

[citation needed] on people saying that

[proud geyser]

"Temperature scales with reasonable ranges are objectively better in daily use" feels true

[sage smelt]

become epistemological skeptic, objective does not exist.

[vocal carbon]

at best I'd say that while meaning perceived temperature

[cloud schooner]

Should we set green light to be the frequency 0 hz, then?

Or red?

[vocal carbon]

no because that's not how that works

[cloud schooner]

Most people don’t interact with light in the infrared or ultraviolet

[proud geyser]

People don't interact with that at all

[cloud schooner]

And that’s not how temperature works either, is my point

[sage smelt]

i mean, almost all color formats have red as 0 (or well, more like "an extreme end of the scale") in soms sense.

[vocal carbon]

the quartz lamp in my bathroom disagrees

[proud geyser]

I don't think most people interact with color <-> frequency , like, ever

So the argument is kind of moot

[vocal carbon]

also true

[long blade]

certainly much less than temperature

[cloud schooner]

Then should we set 0 kg to be “average human mass”?

[proud geyser]

And saying "690nm" once every three years isn't bad

[vocal carbon]

also no

[proud geyser]

No
Again, we experience 0kg, so using an absolute scale here is good

[sage smelt]

i interact with color as hsv(0, 1, 1) where 0 is indeed red.

[vocal carbon]

@hot basin

:3

get sucked in, loser /j

[proud geyser]

We're discussion (F or C) vs K // relative vs absolute

I'm still torn on ºF vs ºC

[cloud schooner]

Break the tie with Kelvin :3c

[vocal carbon]

I'd say between F and C you should just pick the one with higher adoption

[sage smelt]

which is C

[proud geyser]

Should I eat burritos or waffles? I can't decide, I guess I'll eat this slab of wood over here

[long blade]

true!

[vocal carbon]

but either is better than something so far removed from the temperatures you usually use

[vocal carbon]

🦫

[hot basin]

F is the most people friendly temp scale
0/100 you die without prep
69? Nice
50 chilly but not bad
80-90 please why
0-10 cold as fuck

[proud geyser]

lmao (replying to the beaver)

[long blade]

yeah kelvin has its uses but mostly in rigorous scientific environments

[vocal carbon]

-100 also cold as fuck

[cloud schooner]

Should I eat concrete or asphalt? Oh well, I’ll eat that pizza over there

[vocal carbon]

I'd say if you want a "people-friendly" scale, it should have 0 around room temperature, or body temperature

[hot basin]

F people
C food
K science
R whatever the fuck uses this

[cloud schooner]

Though I think in the end, we’re disagreeing on premises and not logic

[sage smelt]

i mean, the entire world agrees on using a relative scale. i think your opinion is definitely the wacky one

[proud geyser]

I think I'm good with this description
Still teetering on the one about people, but eh

[long blade]

K/R for temperature deltas

[cloud schooner]

Oh, I know—

[sage smelt]

isnt this just canada?

[proud geyser]

sigh
They like to be special, and then the mars crash happens smh my head my head

[cloud schooner]

Hold on I need to go commit murder

[vocal carbon]

let's all bond over shared hatred over the USA again

[proud geyser]

Hating the us 🙏

[vocal carbon]

like the internet loves to do

[sage smelt]

(not the people, just the systems)

[long blade]

...am i about to unironically defend rankine

[vocal carbon]

some of the people

[long blade]

i might lol

[vocal carbon]

no you're not 🔫🐛

/threat ||/j||

[hot basin]

The fuck??? Ive never seen it used?? That has to be engineering only type thing.
Temp is always F or C on every chart.

[proud geyser]

My premise is:
"If you use a system of measurement in day to day life, it better suit the range it's always used in"

Kilograms do this, meters do this, feet do this

[proud geyser]

I expectantly await a defense of Rankine

[cloud schooner]

Feet does not deserve to be in the discussion

[long blade]

if you take the difference between two temperatures in celsius, the difference is in kelvin. it's useful to have an analogous unit for rankine

[vocal carbon]

(<insert side note about gram technically being the base unit of kilogram>)

[proud geyser]

Feet is a really reasonable way of measuring human-sized things
I would never use it, but it's pretty good

[long blade]

it's not useful in most situations, but here it is

[hot basin]

Blame those guys that attacked the ship that was bringing us metric lol

[cloud schooner]

While it KILLS me inside, the SI unit IS the kilogram

[vocal carbon]

that was me

[wicked folio]

definitionally speaking, the kilogramme is the SI base unit, not the gramme

[vocal carbon]

yes, hence the "technically"

[proud geyser]

Yeah! Exactly!
The gram was the original SI unit, but it was wayyy too small, so they redefined SI so that the kilo was SI (afaik)

So, yeah, that's the whole point! We use the units in our range!!

[sage smelt]

you ated it?

[vocal carbon]

I eated the ship

:3

[cloud schooner]

Yeah, but it also kills me inside that this is the case

[hot basin]

also.
Like all things different between the US and brits
The brits used to do it.
They changed.
We didn't.

[proud geyser]

Me too, tbh
They could've picked a different word
But eh, whatever

Point being: the range of a scale is important

And kg, m, ft(?), etc all fulfill this

ºC and ºF do too

K does not

[cloud schooner]

My other beefs with SI:

Ampere is the base unit despite being defined in terms of charge
Candelas

[proud geyser]

Candelas shouldn't exist, I concur

[cloud schooner]

Also the fact that mass to be defined by a lump of French metal

[proud geyser]

Who makes an SI unit be objectively based on a chart of subjective experience

[cloud schooner]

But credit where it’s due, they changed that

[proud geyser]

Would you prefer for charge to be the base unit?

That sounds identical

actually, what's the definition of an amp

[vocal carbon]

is an electric current equivalent to 1019 elementary charges moving every 1.602176634 seconds

[proud geyser]

It is defined in terms of charge lmao

[vocal carbon]

or 6.241509074×1018 elementary charges moving in a second

[cloud schooner]

Yes

[proud geyser]

That sounds like a distinction without a difference

[vocal carbon]

isn't the choice of SI just which one is easiest to measure?

[proud geyser]

Which comes back to being in human ranges lmao

It always comes back to this

[vocal carbon]

no I meant tooling

[proud geyser]

Well ,yeah

Human ranges are easier to tool for

You can't tool for electrons, they too smol for us

[vocal carbon]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmfdeWd0RMk

[proud geyser]

ccccc my beloved

i love it

phenomenal example of using matricies to convert between systems of measurement, too, since it's so wack

[cloud schooner]

Honestly, if I had my way, charge would be defined such that +1 is the charge of a proton

And it would be the base unit

Now, I also know that THIS is completely futile

[proud geyser]

So your units of current and power would be... enourmous

The things we actually deal with would be impossible to say

Or would all have an enourmous prefix

I prefer my human-range units to take preference

[vocal carbon]

ehh

[cloud schooner]

Have you seen our units of magnetism?

[vocal carbon]

there's conversion factors for stuff

[proud geyser]

I don't think I have
But that's kind of the point

[cloud schooner]

And coulombs are already too big in general

[vocal carbon]

physicists and real humans share units after all

[proud geyser]

khfadkjashfdkjsh

[cloud schooner]

Everybody knows that physicists happen when you take a human being and multiply them by i

[long blade]

*j

[proud geyser]

Oh no, they're the exact same but a process has occured /ref

Wait, I thought that said 1

I am blind

[proud geyser]

No >:(
slaps j out of hand

[vocal carbon]

but human beings are already complex

so physicists are negative

[proud geyser]

i is better than j and I will die on this very objective hill >>:((
and I'm in uni for engineering

[cloud schooner]

Have you met human beings? We’re all just fancy animals with anxiety

[vocal carbon]

I assumed that was supposed to be /j

[long blade]

pulls out k, recontextualizing my "physicists use j" joke as a quaternion joke

[vocal carbon]

and you think anxiety is simple?

[proud geyser]

gAsp
I was gotten
Fair play, touché, [more synonyms]

[vocal carbon]

ohh

eats it

(the joke)

[proud geyser]

Noooo don't eat quaternionnssss

oh ok
pats quaternions

My beloved
I wish I understood you

[vocal carbon]

eats quaternions

[proud geyser]

nO-

[long blade]

something something octonion time?

[cloud schooner]

To deal with? No, of course not. But it’s a simple process: adrenaline is released to extents and times that cause discomfort

[proud geyser]

I don't they're not associative, which is bad
Or something like that

[long blade]

yeah

[proud geyser]

They are noncommutative and nonassociative (Source: Wikipedia)
Yepyep

I wrote "I don't think they're not"
My brain is going real strong rn

[cloud schooner]

Just say the even subalgebras of the 2, 3, and 4 geometric algebras, (complex, quaternions, octanions respectively )

[proud geyser]

What's the 0 geometric algebra

[long blade]

i've got to learn more GA eventually

[cloud schooner]

Real numbers

[proud geyser]

...Then what's the 1 geometric algebra?

[cloud schooner]

No wait, I’m an idiot

[proud geyser]

lmao, mood

[long blade]

0 is probably the empty set

[cloud schooner]

That’s the 1 geometric algebra

[long blade]

/guessing

[proud geyser]

Empty set would make sense

[cloud schooner]

I think it might actually be 0

[long blade]

could be

[cloud schooner]

Not the null set

The set {0}

[long blade]

yeah

[cloud schooner]

Hold on, lemme check something

[proud geyser]

Also would make sense

I'm taking that as fact and putting it in my subconscious

[cloud schooner]

My brain returns “an algebra is a vector space with a closed multiplication operator between two elements”, which I’m having a hard time googling to confirm

But pretending that’s true

If we take {0} with regular addition and multiplication as its operators

0+0=0

There is an identity element of both addition and multiplication (0)

Addition is associative and commmutative

Multiplication is also closed

0 is its own additive inverse

There is a real scalar number that multiplies 0 to get 0

Scalar multiplication distributes over “vector” addition

And “vector” multiplication by a scalar distributes over scalar addition

So I think this is true

[proud geyser]

Does commutativity matter?

[proud geyser]

I don't think 0 is a scalar here, since we're not in the reals

[cloud schooner]

For addition, I think yes

[cloud schooner]

That’s why I didn’t call 0 a scalar

[proud geyser]

Oh, I didn't know

[proud geyser]

There is a real scalar number that multiplies 0 to get 0
Which real scalar number is it?

[long blade]

all of them, since multiplication by anything has to output 0

(as it is the only value in the set lol)

[proud geyser]

But, like, it's not a scalar, is what I meant

(yes I'm being pedantic, [shh])

[long blade]

no you multiply a scalar by the non-scalar 0

like how you multiply vectors by scalars in a vector space

[proud geyser]

oh
hmmm
But do we have access to scalars if we're below them?

[long blade]

iirc vector spaces are defined over some set of scalars

[proud geyser]

I think I'm missing much more terminology than I thought

[long blade]

that's fair yeah